Breakthrough in Pre-empting Breast Cancer
01 May 2012

The major scientific story hitting the headlines today is the findings that genetic tests signalling epigenetic changes could in fact give a strong warning signal prior to the onset of breast cancer. The findings, spearheaded by Dr James Flanagan and Imperial College London, are published in the journal Cancer Research.

Increased methylation of the gene in question, the ATM gene, was observed to double the risk of developing breast cancer in women of all ages, with the tests being taken between 3 and 11 years prior to the individual being diagnosed with breast cancer.

This is exciting news, giving real hope that the likelihood of cancer occurring can be spotted and tracked many years before the age of high risk, by performing a simple blood test prior to diagnosis.

The possibilities that come with this revelation are profound, with the possibility of avoiding the disease altogether, as well as increased screening and earlier diagnosis for those with increased chances of getting the cancer.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_1-5-2012-11-17-53

Stanford Scientist Tracks Genetic Onset of Own Diabetes
20 Mar 2012

At what point would you still want to/not want to know your genetically predisposed destiny? What if your genes spell out a fair chance of you developing diabetes or even cancer? Would you live your life differently, change your diet? Would the knowledge of this increased possibility of disease leave you with sleepless nights or would you feel empowered by this chance to come to terms with or even delay the onset?

The above are all questions that every person will have their own view on and I would expect opinion to differ wildly. In many respects, I would fall on the side of ‘not want to know’, on the grounds that in many cases I would not be in a position to alter the inevitable, whereas another part of me knows that this foresight would make me more proactive in undergoing tests to ensure early detection. Swings and roundabouts, and a minefield of ethical and medical dilemmas are inevitable as we progress towards personalised medicine and pay-per-genome availability on the market.

The reason for these ponderings is an article released by Stanford University, detailing two years of research by Dr Snyder and team wherein the geneticist’s DNA, RNA and cellular proteins were sequenced and monitored. By taking snapshots of molecular variables over time, the team not only monitored Snyder’s immune system as it battled with viral infections, but also highlighted his genetic predisposition to develop diabetes. Armed with this knowledge, Dr Snyder made alterations to his diet and lifestyle, and managed to pre-empt any severe difficulties associated with the onset of type-II diabetes.

Take a look at the Stanford article for full details of experimental design and results. It’s a great read, showing the future of personalised medicine is oh so close and very real indeed.

Gorilla conservation, yes… but conversation?!
08 Mar 2012

Years ago, it was established that the chimpanzee is the closest relative to human beings; after all, we split from them quite recently right, a mere 4-6million years back. Therefore it is astonishing to find that the newly-sequenced gorilla genome has thrown out an unexpected resemblance between us and the gorilla, with 15% of our genes bearing more resemblance with them than with the chimpanzee - in fact we share a massive 98% of genes.

For gorillas and their future safety, the insights this sequencing brings has given us a strong case and hopefully a promising future for the conservation of gorillas, offering us with information about the animal’s fitness and highlighting the importance of saving these beautiful beasts.

Whilst this research also opens up many interesting topics on the evolution of humans and the great apes, it also throws a couple of spanners in the works (or should that be a monkey wrench). An interesting example is that of the gene LOXHD1: the fact that this gene is responsible for hearing led to the belief that the influence also spreads to human speech…. so why is the gene shown to be so evolved in gorillas, who are not exactly known for their linguistic skills?

By comparing the genomes, mutations and consequent diseases that result in humans, we can continue to build on our understanding of how and why these occur, and why the variants can be so damaging to the human body and mind, and yet not to the gorilla.

The full article is available in Nature online, with many more viewpoints and articles available around the net. Well worth a read if you haven’t already done so.

Nice to hear it’s not just me……
06 Mar 2012

It is therefore incredibly frustrating when I see how some scientific news stories are reported in the media. It seems that barely a day goes by without certain British newspapers running a story about what everyday food/activity/electronic item* (*delete as appropriate) causes cancer. Having said that, I often wonder if my frustration is yet another sign that I am becoming a grumpy old man.

This excellent blog post from Martin Robbins at The Guardian makes me feel a whole lot better about myself and really highlights why scientific reporting in the media should be taken with a healthy dose of salt.

I would really like to hear your thoughts and experiences with how science is reported in the media.

Ashley
Managing Editor